Held, is applicable to applications preferred under S. 7 IBC once it is shown that all conditions for application of S. 14 of the Limitation Act are satisfied in the facts of the case. The conditions for exclusion of time under S.14 of the Limitation Act are that the earlier proceedings should have been for the same relief, the proceedings should have been prosecuted diligently and in good faith and the proceedings should have been prosecuted in a forum which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain it. Held, IBC does not exclude the operation of S.14 of the Limitation Act.
The expression “as far as may be” (in ref. to S. 238-A) is indicative of the fact that all or any of the provisions of the Limitation Act may not apply to proceedings before the adjudicating authority (NCLT) or the appellate authority (NCLAT) if they are patently inconsistent with some provisions of the IBC. The words “as far as may be” cannot be construed as a total exclusion of the requirements of the basic principles of S. 14 of the Limitation Act, but permit a wider, more liberal, contextual and purposive interpretation by necessary modification, which is in harmony with the principles of the said section.
(2021) 7 SCC 313 [Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd.]